Case study: He Said, She Said, and No One Is Listening!

Case study: He Said, She Said, and No One Is Listening! Case study: He Said, She Said, and No One Is Listening! Permalink: https://nursingpaperessays.com/ case-study-he-sa…one-is-listening / ? Please find attached the nursing leadership case study and answer the attached questions in APA format . Save the write as pdf. The write up and references { 2 references} should be in 1 page. It should not be more than 1 page. Just follow the rubrics and instructionsto do the writing. Case study: He Said, She Said, and No One Is Listening! Appendix B DISCUSSION BOARD ASSIGNMENTS 1-3 Learning Objective : The student will analyze, synthesize, and apply critical thinking principles and leadership concepts to the case study presented for their discussion board. The goal is to view both sides of the transformational leadership situation or case study and make a leadership decision based upon the principles and concepts from your textbook on transformational leadership attributes. The student should support their decision with textbooks, articles given for course content and additional journal articles to support their transformational leadership role or action. DISCUSSION BOARD 1: Communication/Collaboration Case study: He Said, She Said, and No One Is Listening! It started out a good day, and Mike reviewed the long list of items that he needed to accomplish that day. He had planned to meet with his managers to discuss the operational budget goals for the department and to initiate discussion about needed capital equipment that had to be projected for the upcoming year. Mike was the director of Medical Surgical Services and had six direct reports who were nurse managers over the following units: Oncology, General-Medical, Postoperative Surgical, Bariatric, Orthopedics, and Observational (short stay). In addition to the six nurse managers, the medical director for Internal Medicine and the medical director for Surgical Services also reported to Mike. The management team was an eclectic group with very different levels of education and experience, which made for lively discussions in their team meetings. Case study: He Said, She Said, and No One Is Listening! Each nurse manager brought a list of capital needs to the meeting. It quickly became apparent that there was more need than there was allocated budget, because Mike’s service line was only one of four for the entire hospital. As the nurse managers began to present their proposed capital needs, the group dynamics began to change from friendly to conflicting and competitive. The Orthopedics department had the longest capital need list with the biggest dollar amount. As the other managers began to defend their list of needs, the nurse manager of the Orthopedics department mentioned that his service line also contributed the greatest amount of revenue as compared to the other departments. He used that fact as a rationale for why his department should receive a larger piece of the allocated budget. Other nurse managers argued fiercely about their contribution to the hospital’s bottom line and the value that their department brought to the organization. When the discussions became heated, Mike suggested that they take a recess as a “cooling off period.” They agreed to meet again the next day to finalize the capital budget plan. The next day the nurse managers came prepared to defend their units’ needs, and they had formed a coalition against the nurse manager of Orthopedics. They had met outside of the meeting and agreed that they might have more power in the discussion if they presented their needs collectively rather than individually. The nurse manager of Orthopedics also had a strategy. He had met with the chief of the Orthopedics service line and the medical director of Surgical Services. He asked them to join him in the meeting and indicate how important it was for Orthopedics to receive the requested capital budget items. He also presented information about the threat to the hospital’s market share if the Orthopedics department did not keep up with state-of-the-art equipment. Not long after the meeting started, it was clear to Mike that the cooling-off period had not worked but rather had served as an opportunity to strengthen the conflict. As each of the nurse managers stated their case and rationale for their requests, tempers began to flare, and accusations were made on both sides. Mike realized that further discussion was not going to be helpful in resolving the conflict. Although the capital budget for his department was due in 2 days, Mike decided to stop the meeting once again. He informed the group that he would meet with two representatives from the coalition group and two representatives from the Orthopedics group. Although the others were not happy about this plan, they were also not happy with the group’s inability to negotiate a fair and equitable capital budget plan within the overall allocated amount. The next day Mike met with the four representatives in a quiet, subdued setting that he felt would facilitate the mediation process and create a favorable environment for open dialogue, negotiation, and resolution. His opening remarks addressed the need for the four representatives to make decisions for the entire team that would be appropriate within the budget limitations. Mike had reviewed in his head the steps of the negotiation process and reminded himself not to take sides or contribute to the discussion until both sides were able to find common ground and begin to develop some realistic solutions. Mike led them through a meeting norming process with the participants agreeing to “rules” for the meeting. They agreed that they would (1) respect the person speaking, and only one person would speak at a time without interruption; (2) focus on the common good in contrast to their individual units’ needs; (3) create a list of the top 10 priorities for the entire department, and then negotiate the list down to the allocated budget amount; and (4) vote on items until consensus was reached. Needless to say, it was not easy in the beginning, and Mike had to continually remind them that there was a finite amount of money that could be allocated and that they needed to make decisions for the whole based on the allocated budget amounts. With this constant reminder and norming process, the four began to work together using the strategic plan for the department as a foundation for their decision making. They also developed rationale for each of their decisions that could be presented to the whole group. It took a full two days of meetings to finally have a proposed budget that could be presented to the rest of the group. Mike called the entire group together and informed them of the decision-making process that led to the proposed budget. Two of the representatives prepared a presentation for the entire group and provided handouts of the proposed budget with a rationale for each item suggested. As it turned out, Orthopedics did receive a greater allocation than the other units, but there was clear justification using the strategic goals for the department as a foundation. Not everyone in the group was happy with the proposed budget, but they did agree that the rationale was sound. After discussion, the group finally decided to adopt the new proposed capital budget and to develop proposals for the hospital’s foundation to fund some of the other items that they felt were important to their units. Mike submitted his final capital budget on time, but he recognized that there was still some discontent among some managers within the group. He realized that he could not please everyone, but the method that he used to resolve the open conflict resulted in a budget that was supportive of the department’s strategic initiatives even though some capital items were not approved, as some had hoped. Questions {I} Although the capital budget has been submitted, what work does Mike need to focus on to improve the group dynamics? {II} How were the 10 steps to conflict resolution used in developing the final solution to the capital budget plan? 1 page including the reference. ( the writeup and the reference should be in 1 page} There would be no title page. Safe it in a pdf document The post should be one page maximum with APA style (double-spaced, 11 Font, with in-text citations). You may use first person or third person. If you use first person, make sure to use professional language and not conversationally slang or contractures. If you use third person, refer to yourself as “the author” NOT “this author.” The scenarios are broad and vague on purpose. The faculty want you to express your creativity or draw from your own experiences to complete the assignment. Often if we use an experience from the past, we find new ways or dealing with the situation as compared to how we initially dealt with the situation. Also, your peer’s may have new insight that will come through the peer response. You should use your textbook and journal articles to support your discussion. Thus, you must include a reference list at the end of the postings. You do NOT have a title page or running heading or page numbers. This is not a paper but rather an online discussion. You will copy and paste the writing directly into the discussion board forum . Also, attach your work within your posting as a pdf document so that formatting can be read as you meant it to be seen. References or resources should be within the last 5 years except for articles or theories that are hallmark articles. Think of the assignments or scenarios as if we were in class discussing these events. Do not make it complex. Straight-forward discussion from your point of view with support from resources. Case study: He Said, She Said, and No One Is Listening! GRADING RUBRIC FOR BLACKBOARD POSTINGS AND PEER RESPONSES (3 assignments, 50 points each) Discussion Primary Response Rubric Discussion Primary Response Rubric 0 points 2-4 point 5-7points 8-9points 10 points Posting Content Knowledge No posting Posting present but omits major points or aspects of reading or lack of understanding of reading. Posting present and reflects some knowledge and understanding of reading. Posting reflects knowledge and understanding of readings. Posting reflects high level of knowledge and understanding of readings and shows that you have gone to outside readings for further analysis and discussion referencing at least one outside source. 0 points 2-4 point 5-7points 8-9 points 10 points Posting Analysis No posting Very little or very weak attempt to relate evidence to argument. More description, little critical thinking. Quotes appear often without analysis. Even balance between critical thinking and description. Presents evidence related to the argument he or she is making, although the connections may not be very clear. Some description, but more critical thinking. Author clearly relates evidence to points of argument; analysis is fresh and exciting. The work displays critical thinking and avoids merely simplistic description or summary information. 0 points 2-4 point 5-7points 8-9points 10 points Posting Clarity Relevance Conciseness Correct citation and sourcing. (APA) No posting The ideas or points being made are not clear. Answer has little or no relevance to the topic. Answer is rambling. Incorrectly cites references. Grammatical errors and spelling mistakes are present. The ideas or points being made are sometimes clear, sometimes unclear. The answer has some relevance to the topic. Some rambling, mostly on topic. Some incorrect citing. Few grammatical errors/spelling mistakes present. The ideas or points being made are mostly clear, occasionally unclear. The answer mostly has relevance to the topic. Answer is mostly concise. The answer mostly correctly cites. No grammatical errors/spelling mistakes are found. Ideas flow that are clearly understood. The answer is relevant to the topic. Answer is concise meeting word requirement. The argument is identifiable, reasonable and sound. The answer correctly cites consistently. No grammatical error/ spelling mistakes. 0 points 2-4 point 5-7points 8-9points 10 points Posting Content Knowledge No posting Posting present but omits major points or aspects of reading or lack of understanding of reading. Posting present and reflects some knowledge and understanding of reading. Case study: He Said, She Said, and No One Is Listening! Posting reflects knowledge and understanding of readings. Posting reflects high level of knowledge and understanding of readings and shows that you have gone to outside readings for further analysis and discussion referencing at least one outside source. 0 points 2-4 point 5-7points 8-9 points 10 points Posting Analysis No posting Very little or very weak attempt to relate evidence to argument. More description, little critical thinking. Quotes appear often without analysis. Even balance between critical thinking and description. Presents evidence related to the argument he or she is making, although the connections may not be very clear. Some description, but more critical thinking. Author clearly relates evidence to points of argument; analysis is fresh and exciting. The work displays critical thinking and avoids merely simplistic description or summary information. 0 points 2-4 point 5-7points 8-9points 10 points Posting Clarity Relevance Conciseness Correct citation and sourcing. (APA) No posting The ideas or points being made are not clear. Answer has little or no relevance to the topic. Answer is rambling. Incorrectly cites references. Grammatical errors and spelling mistakes are present. The ideas or points being made are sometimes clear, sometimes unclear. The answer has some relevance to the topic. Some rambling, mostly on topic. Some incorrect citing. Few grammatical errors/spelling mistakes present. The ideas or points being made are mostly clear, occasionally unclear. The answer mostly has relevance to the topic. Answer is mostly concise. The answer mostly correctly cites. No grammatical errors/spelling mistakes are found. Ideas flow that are clearly understood. The answer is relevant to the topic. Answer is concise meeting word requirement. The argument is identifiable, reasonable and sound. The answer correctly cites consistently. No grammatical error/ spelling mistakes. Books to use as reference References Albert, N, Pappas, S. H, Porter-O’ Grady, T. & Malloch, K. ( 2021). Quantum Leadership 6th edition Fry, S. T., Johnstone, M. J., & Fletcher, M. (2003). Ethics in nursing practice: a guide to ethical decision making. The Canadian Nurse , 99 (4), 20. Marshall, E. S. & Broome, M. E. ( 2021). Transformational Leadership in Nursing ( 3rd edition) Case study: He Said, She Said, and No One Is Listening! Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10